Talk:Literatur und Kritik
 | Literatur und Kritik was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Successful good article nomination edit
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Pass
- 2. Factually accurate?: Pass
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
- 5. Article stability? Pass
- 6. Images?: n/a
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.
--Irina Walter (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Delisted from GA edit
I'm sorry, but I highly disagree with the recent promotion of this article to Good Article status. This is an extremely new article and it undoubtedly shows; the lead section does not follow WP:LEAD as a proper summary of the entire article, the prose is extremely poor ("Young authors were given more room as well as the literature from Central and East European countries"... so? "Actually, Literatur und Kritik has an edition of 4,000 pieces"... what does "pieces" refer to?) and appears to have been written by someone whose native language is not English. It needs a full copy-edit and further fixes to the prose. Perhaps more importantly, there are no inline citations. Because of this, the article is not verifiable. Therefore, the article certainly fails the first two criteria for GAs, if not others; I doubt that its coverage is broad enough, as well, as the article seems extremely short. There is no information about its early years and/or critical reception, for example. I'm therefore going to delist the article from Good Article status as I think that the previous review was in error. At this time, the article is barely more than a Start article. María (habla conmigo) 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I second the delisting. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please inspect an article that is already rated GA as Venture Science Fiction Magazine to gain an understanding of the standards expected. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Third to the decision. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fourth. No citations, lead is weak, (does not meet the guideline. It is not broad in coverage, as the Poetry section (for example) is 2 sentences long. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 02:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Third to the decision. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please inspect an article that is already rated GA as Venture Science Fiction Magazine to gain an understanding of the standards expected. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)